Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips


  View printer friendly version

785 Phil. 379

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 167838, April 20, 2016 ]

JOSE V. TOLEDO, GLENN PADIERNOS AND DANILO PADIERNOS, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES RAMOS, ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, MILAGROS RAMOS AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF SOCORRO RAMOS, GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND A.R.C. MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ALBERTO C. DY, RESPONDENTS.

R E S O L U T I O N

JARDELEZA, J.:

On August 5, 2015, the Court rendered a Decision granting petitioners Jose Toledo, Glenn Padiernos and Danilo Padiernos' petition for review on certiorari. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 22, 2004 and April 13, 2005, respectively, in CA G.R. SP No. 73670. Judgment is hereby rendered declaring petitioners the owners of Lot 4, Block 2, Ilang-Ilang Street, Sunrise Hills Subdivision, Quezon City presently covered by Transfer Certificate of Title [TCT] No. RT-17876/(242918). The Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby ordered to:

(a)
CANCEL TCT No. RT-17876 (242918) in the name of ARC Marketing Corporation; and
(b)
ISSUE a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of petitioners Jose V. Toledo, Glenn Padiernos and Danilo Padiemos.

SO ORDERED.[1]
On October 1, 2015, a motion was filed seeking for the reconsideration of this Court's Decision.[2] Since this case involved a determination of the correctness of the trial court's Order dated June 17, 2002 granting its motion to dismiss Civil Case No. Q-97-30738,[3] respondent ARC Marketing Corporation (ARC Marketing) posits that a reversal of such grant would consequently cause only a remand of the case to the court of origin.[4]

Indeed, in addition to resolving the matter of the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-97-30738, the Court, to prevent undue hardship on the parties and on the basis of the records before it, did decide the issue of ownership of the disputed property.[5] On reconsideration, however, we agree that the issue of whether ARC Marketing is a buyer in good faith involves a factual issue the determination of which cannot be made by the Court in a petition for review filed under Rule 45.[6] While the foregoing rule admits of certain exceptions,[7] none appears to be invoked in this case. Thus, ARC Marketing's motion is GRANTED and the case is remanded to the court of origin for trial on the merits, where the concerned parties may present evidence to prove their respective claims and defenses. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the Decision is MODIFIED as follows:
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 22, 2004 and April 13, 2005, respectively, in CA G.R. SP No. 73670. Civil Case No. Q-97-30738 is REMANDED to the court of origin which is DIRECTED to resolve the case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Perez, JJ., concur.



June 13, 2016

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs / Mesdames:

Please take notice that on April 20, 2016 a Resolution, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on June 13, 2016 at 1:45 p.m.


Very truly yours,
(SGD)WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court



[1] Rollo, pp. 1029-1030.

[2] Id. at 1033-1040.

[3] Id. at 1016-1017.

[4] Id. at 1034.

[5] Decision, id. at 1024.

[6] Rotairo v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 173632, September 29, 2014, 736 SCRA 584, 591 citing Peralta v. Heirs of Bernardina Abalon, G.R. Nos. 183448 & 183464, June 30, 2014, 727 SCRA 477, 500.

[7] Peralta v. Heirs of Bernardina Abalon, G.R. Nos. 183448 & 183464, June 30, 2014, 727 SCRA 477, 500-501.

© Supreme Court E-Library 2019
This website was designed and developed, and is maintained, by the E-Library Technical Staff in collaboration with the Management Information Systems Office.